So much for bipartisanship

Sunday

Oct 7, 2012 at 6:00 AM

Robert Nemeth

One has to feel sympathy for poor Scott Brown. He has been an outstanding public servant, accomplished lawmaker and all-around decent human being. He has earned re-election to the U.S. Senate many times over, yet has to scramble to retain his seat in a close election.

He has earned a reputation for using independent judgment in a political arena dominated by cutthroat party politics, and in return should be able to enjoy respect from both sides of the aisle. Instead, political leaders he had sought out for collaboration in the service of the common good lined up in a collective effort to replace him with an unqualified, inexperienced and untrustworthy opponent.

And why, you may ask. Because that opponent has a capital “D” attached to her name, which in Massachusetts makes up for just about any deficiency. Because of that magic letter, which guarantees thousands of unearned votes, Sen. Brown’s colleagues quickly threw him under the bus. So much for bipartisanship in Bay State politics, where fair play, civility and public interest take a backseat to party loyalty.

Democrats in general have the advantage in this blood sport. They are better organized, better disciplined and far better united than the Republicans. The long primary season was characterized by endless infighting among Republicans that inflicted deep wounds on GOP candidates and weakened the frontrunner, Mitt Romney. Instead of erecting a big tent for all, the party ended up with a house divided. Democrats can count on an army of volunteers, provided by labor unions and special interest groups, to make phone calls, distribute campaign material, register voters and take them to the polls, even help with filling out ballots. In several states, early-voting provisions and motor-voter laws, promoted by Democrats, make a mockery of the traditional Election Day.

Evidently, party loyalty in Massachusetts is blind. One astonishing example was state Attorney General Martha Coakley, chief law enforcement officer for the commonwealth, joining incumbent Congressman John Tierney for a recent fundraiser. Mr. Tierney has been living under a cloud of suspicion created by ethical questions involving his wife’s criminal activities and his apparent failure to report at least $223,000 in spousal income to the House Ethics Committee.

Having been the party of entitlements, Democrats also tend to have a strong sense of job-entitlement for themselves. I remember when, for a brief period of time, the traditionally Democratic 3rd Congressional District, which includes Worcester, was held by a Republican. “Let’s Get Back the Third” was the Democrats’ resounding battle cry during a four-year effort to re-capture the district, until Jim McGovern finally succeeded.

In a special election two years ago, Scott Brown defeated Ms. Coakley to win the seat in the U.S. Senate that was occupied by Ted Kennedy for many years. Democrats still refer to it as the “Kennedy seat,” and winning it back is the second highest priority for the party, next to re-electing President Obama.

It seems to be an unwritten rule in Massachusetts that at least one member of the Kennedy family should be in Congress, regardless of qualifications or merit. This year, Joseph Kennedy III, 31, an obscure assistant district attorney, is the anointed one to replace the retiring Barney Frank in the 4th Congressional District. You can bet the farm that he’ll be elected in a contest with Sean Bielat, a far better qualified Republican opponent.

The contest between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren for the U.S. Senate is framed by out-of-control partisanship. The highest-profile and most expensive statewide race of the year, it is poisoned by the politics of envy, class warfare and an orgy of distortion. When Brown staffers were caught mocking Ms. Warren — who falsely pretended to have Native American roots — doing tomahawk chops and war chants, Democrats went ballistic with charges of racism and trampling on “affirmative action.” (It’s worth noting that supporters of the Florida State University football team do tomahawk chops and chants at every game, and that many teams have Indians, Warriors or Redskins for a nickname.)

Lost in the cacophony of loud voices is what really is at stake for Massachusetts. The voters can preserve strong, reliable and balanced representation in the U.S. Senate by re-electing Scott Brown, a seasoned lawmaker of proven integrity.

Or they can make the foolish mistake of picking an inexperienced and unqualified person of questionable character who has never held public office, and whose claim to fame is inspiring the Occupy Wall Street movement and spawning the ominous Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Despite being new, the CFPB has a $447 million budget and nearly 600 employees, 60 percent of whom make six-figure salaries. Who is protecting the consumers against that wasteful bureaucratic behemoth?

Ms. Warren is a critic of private enterprise and a self-appointed champion of the “exploited” middle class, except when she pockets lucrative fees as a lawyer representing corporate interests in court. Sending her to Washington would add another liberal Democrat to a congressional delegation consisting entirely of liberal Democrats. In brief, electing Ms. Warren would be monumental folly.

As for the concept of bipartisanship, it appears to be a one-way street in Massachusetts.